How about lets eliminate every single penny of welfare that goes to red states? If you really want welfare and you're in a red state, move to a blue state. Let blue states take care of you and leave the red states out of paying for welfare that they don't want to do.
Right wing people oppose welfare so this is what I propose
Posts
Total:
33
Let me convert this proposal into something more straightforward:
End all federal welfare and proportionally lower federal taxes.
Then blue states can implement the welfare programs they want with their own money. (and red states will still implement welfare programs because they still believe in welfare programs, just not 25% of GDP racist welfare programs)
See there was a system to handle differing opinions between states, it's being strangled by the monstrosity of federal taxes which were never part of the original plan.
-->
@TheUnderdog
What about corporate welfare? State and local spending on corporate welfare has ballooned to at least $95 billion, up 200 percent in the past 30 years, and nearly twice as much as public funding for fire protection. Every state throws money at corporations, and while most don’t report the true totals, the evidence that exists is deeply concerning.
-->
@FLRW
Assuming that's true, they have a word for that in other countries: corruption.
The complete solution is complex, but the starting point is starvation. If politicians can't be found who won't steal the people's wealth and launder it through government contracts then reduce the amount of stealing.
Anything really needs to be done can be directly funded by the people, and there is the added bonus of it actually being moral.
Hahaha, let's see it happen. I can't wait for America's right wing to go 'oh fuck! All our economic powerhouse states are Democrat or swing states how did we ever think the needy Reds could cope on their own?
-->
@FLRW
Corporate welfare shouldn't exist. But neither should individual welfare.
-->
@TheUnderdog
How about lets eliminate every single penny of welfare that goes to red states? If you really want welfare and you're in a red state, move to a blue state. Let blue states take care of you and leave the red states out of paying for welfare that they don't want to do.
food and housing assistance cost society LESS $$$ THAN incarceration
-->
@3RU7AL
food and housing assistance cost society LESS $$$ THAN incarceration
Minimal assistance ---allowance-- and education is better than cost of incarceration.
They shoot and score three for 3RU7AL * * *
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I think that is the way to go. So often do people in the US want the federal government to take care of everything. Hell, so many on the left keep calling for a national, single payer, health care financing system when basically no country does it that way.
Yet you will hear them insist that it is the model used all over the place.
It is because there is too much emphasis on doing things on a federal level. So, you blue states want more welfare? Go ahead, just keep it state level and not federal level.
-->
@3RU7AL
We don't need to incarcerate people that receive welfare. Just ship welfare recipients and their families to blue states so things make more sense (pro welfare blue states being poor, anti-welfare red states being rich). The blue sttes want to take care of them and the red states don't, so lets make everyone happy.
-->
@3RU7AL
@TheMorningsStar
[RationalMadman] Hahaha, let's see it happen. I can't wait for America's right wing to go 'oh fuck! All our economic powerhouse states are Democrat or swing states how did we ever think the needy Reds could cope on their own?
See this is why there is hope for a peaceful divorce. Both sides are completely convinced the other side is dragging them down.
[3RU7AL] food and housing assistance cost society LESS $$$ THAN incarceration
... and food and housing assistance aren't taking up 40%+ of the american GDP. That would be failed federal programs including defense spending; now to call them failed might be too generous. As FLRW points out, if they are designed to launder money through corporate contracts they are succeeding brilliantly.
[TheMorningsStar] So often do people in the US want the federal government to take care of everything. Hell, so many on the left keep calling for a national, single payer, health care financing system when basically no country does it that way.
Well you can pull a Solomon and find out who really wants to control others by suggesting they shift their focus to state level away from federal. If they agree they believe their system is stable and beneficial. If they disagree they know that their system cannot coexist with another, and the only reason that would be the case these days is if their system is worse and will cause the state to suffer population and production exodus.
RationalMadman up there is a true believer. The democrat party as a whole is not and they are not willing to let Texas and Florida sit there with their low taxes and four year olds who haven't considered their sexual identity yet.
-->
@TheUnderdog
top ten states for per-capita social welfare spending [**]
1. New York
2. Alaska - republican governor Mike Dunleavy
3. Massachusetts - republican governor Charles D. Baker
4. Vermont - republican governor Phil Scott
5. Minnesota
6. New Mexico
7. Delaware
8. Maine
9. Oregon
10. Kentucky
-->
@3RU7AL
top ten states for per-capita social welfare spending
A much more useful ranking would be federal welfare per federal taxes. That would show which ones are spending more than their "fair share". Note that while state and local governments are often the final hands before "helping" people the money often still goes through the federal government and may be redistribution.
i.e. the feds steal from the people of a state through income taxes, then they throw it all in a big pot, and then they hand a lot of money to state governments not necessarily in proportion to the original stealing.
-->
@RationalMadman
Hahaha, let's see it happen. I can't wait for America's right wing to go 'oh fuck! All our economic powerhouse states are Democrat or swing states how did we ever think the needy Reds could cope on their own?
That’s not really how it works. The exit polls are very imperfect but 2020 followed a long term trend of republicans winning higher income brackets and democrats winning lower income brackets. This trend used to be a lot stronger when college educated whites were a strong republican group but it still persists now because high income non college educated people have become staunch republicans. Red states receive more federal spending/pay less in per capita taxes largely due to the south and the voters who receive that welfare are largely democratic voters. In reality neither party has a monopoly on tax payers or welfare users, it’s more a matter of chance that the distribution of groups in various states is the way that it is
-->
@thett3
Shame that the highest need the lowest to work for them, isn't it?
Greedy people are fine as long as their relationship with the poor is symbiotic.
-->
@RationalMadman
Shame that the highest need the lowest to work for them, isn't it?Greedy people are fine as long as their relationship with the poor is symbiotic.
What do you mean?
-->
@thett3
I am not sure how else to word my sensible reply to your futile flexing that many greedy rich bastards vote for the party that simps them. Nobody cares, everybody knows.
-->
@RationalMadman
I am not sure how else to word my sensible reply to your futile flexing that many greedy rich bastards vote for the party that simps them. Nobody cares, everybody knows.
I'm not sure if everyone knows because I see it often said that Republicans are hypocritical for opposing expansion of the welfare state when Red states tend to use more welfare/government services. This is true, but it doesn't tend to be true for the actual Republican voters in those states (although it is true for many to be sure--like I said nobody has a monopoly on welfare users)
Also is a family income of above $100k but below $200k really "rich"? That seems solidly middle class to upper middle class the further up you go and that's the only bracket Trump won. The exit polls are flawed but I think they get the broad strokes right, I bet Trump actually did win this group
-->
@TheUnderdog
Eliminating welfare is just fine, until you find yourself in need of welfare.
Nonetheless.....One assumes that welfare evolved because human social morality and ethics evolved.
That is to say that we became more considerate as a species.
Though true.......We certainly haven't all evolved at the same rate.
Perhaps if people on welfare weren't allowed to vote.......How would that work for you?
-->
@zedvictor4
You are supporting tyranny
-->
@zedvictor4
Eliminating welfare is just fine, until you find yourself in need of welfare.
If I need help, I go to a church, not the government. The church was funded by means as consensual as religion it’s self; the government is not.
Perhaps if people on welfare weren't allowed to vote.......How would that work for you?
I would support that, but in addition, all welfare recipients need to rely on a consenting religious or secular charity; not the government.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Tyranny
-->
@RationalMadman
No, I'm being ironic.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't think you quite understand how the "Church" acquired it's wealth....There's nothing squeaky clean about the Church.
And there's nothing consensual about brainwashing children with religious non-sense.
And for example, there was nothing consensual about incarcerating unmarried mothers in brutal Roman Catholic sweat shops.
Over here in the U.K. the workhouse was abolished a long time ago........We sort of evolved into a more caring society.
So it's sad to see that certain sectors of U.S. society haven't evolved with the same level of social concern (morality).
I would suggest that if there is one good thing about moderate governance, it's that it freed us from RELIGIOUS TYRANNY.
@rm
It is tyranny to force me to pay for other people’s kids when I did not choose to breed them.
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think you quite understand how the "Church" acquired it's wealth
Tithes and donations from the faithful.
And there's nothing consensual about brainwashing children with religious non-sense.
Parents have a god given and constitutional right to teach their kids any religion they want. If you have kids, you don’t have to teach them religion. But parents have the right to.
And for example, there was nothing consensual about incarcerating unmarried mothers in brutal Roman Catholic sweat shops.
Honestly, hating the Catholic Church over something as ancient as this is like hating Britain because Britain enslaved black people hundreds of years ago. I’m assuming you don’t hate Britain.
Over here in the U.K. the workhouse was abolished a long time ago........We sort of evolved into a more caring society.
So if America sent all our homeless people to the UK, you’d be fine with it?
But America isn’t socialist like Europe. People want to move to Texas, Florida, and Arizona, not shitholes like London.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Welcome to society, you take part or get the fuck out of society.
-->
@TheUnderdog
>calling London a shithole nobody wants to move to
LOL
-->
@RationalMadman
I did a quick google search, London by all accounts I read is in fact a shithole. Some going as far to say it is the worst city on the entire planet. One person said the only good thing about London is leaving it if the public transportation is working. LOL